Core values

IN RECENT years, MBA programme directors have done a lot of tinkering with the degree. Whether adding specialisations, compulsory international trips or more focus on the softer topics, such as leadership and ethics, few programmes look the same now as they did ten years ago.

One area which has changed less than most, however, is the core of the programme. These compulsory subjects, which dominate the first half of most MBAs, are supposed to be the part of the programme that ground students in the fundamentals of business. Some commentators even go so far as to claim that the core of an MBA is nothing more than a commodity; that it matters little where you study it, because everywhere teaches the same thing; and that it is the rest of the programme that adds the value.

If the core of an MBA programme itself has a core, then it is the finance and strategy courses. Nothing could be more fundamental; they are the building blocks on which nearly all other business knowledge is built. Interesting, then, that a new survey of applicants, current students and recent graduates, conducted by Which MBA?, suggests that it is in these subjects that business schools are failing. Sixty per cent of current or recently-graduated students thought that they could have done with more core strategy classes (see chart below). Around 38% cited finance as lacking. For prospective students, the message was even more striking. Three-quarters believed that schools should focus more on strategy and over half wanted more finance.

Of more relief to schools is that relatively few of our respondents thought that any of their core classes were redundant; manufacturing and production was considered the most overdone, with 19% of students saying the course should be either deleted or given less prominence.

Is this a sign that the schools are failing to drag students with them when they design innovative new programmes, and that what students really want is an MBA that goes back to basics? It may be, but it is unlikely to be a message heeded by the schools. There are now more MBA programmes fewer applicants, particularly in North America which sets the tone that the rest of the world follows. What is more, most need to justify inflation-busting tuition-fee increases. Sadly, most will conclude that a tag line of: "we do the basics, better", will differentiate them, and will thus not help in either cause.

About the survey: Of the 713 survey responders, 75% have not yet taken an MBA, 16% are currently studying for an MBA and 9% have already taken an MBA. The geographic distribution is: 36% from Asia; 1% from Australia/Oceania; 18% from Europe; 16% from Middle East/Africa; 21% from North America; and 8% from South/Central America.

75% of respondents were prospective students. How will they be able to accurately judge the focus of MBA courses when they would not have even attended them!

Out of the minuscule 9% who have completed their MBA (& hence opinion is relevant in this case), it would be interesting to know their experience yrs after MBA. If they have freshly graduated from a B school, chances are that they would not know how exactly the course they learnt was useful.

And in general, 713 respondents is too small a number and not representative of the entire population, given the # of MBA grads churned out every year.

Whilst it is important to teach these subjects well, it is also critical to get the inter-relationships right. Too many MBAs teach subjects in silos, perhaps with a token 'integration exercise', without capturing the diverse and complex nature of real business issues - The Open University MBA teaches strategy and finance in a parallel, interlinked manner - this helps achieve additional depth in each field, and, moreover, provides a more realistic insight into business realities...

Strategy is basic to any businesses success; however a plan to implement and monitor progress against that strategy is even MORE IMPORTANT. For more information on a comprehensive business planning and management approach go to: .
Stuart Bostock's comment about TACTICS is "right on" - the tactics are IMPLEMENTATION, but you also need the ability to MONITOR PROGRESS 24/7 so you can make adjustments "real-time" to those TACTICS to keep the business "on track against plan".
Richard A. Kling

75% of respondents hadn't started the MBA ... So we're they enrolled or just looking at the brochure? I'm 9 weeks into mine and granted - very early days - but I'm seeing the relevance immediately. I have a corporate social responsibility/ sustainability/environment engineering background and if 'we' want to make a true difference - we've got to learn the commercial and business language. Would encourage all CSR practioners to get into it - it'll make a difference.

The Core programme should cover most of the basic business courses such as Finance, Marketing, Strategy, Human Resources, Production, Accounting etc. I am not sure about giving certain courses more weight than others since a student will have the option of specialising when it comes to electives.

Strategy can assume importance of core if there happens to be 1)A well demarcated ground 2)Crystal clearly visible goal post 3) A team of a players (group with common interest);
Nowadays,
1) Ground is infinite, so policy (not strategy) is "BY HOOK or CROOK";
2)Money and that too infinite money (no higher limits to stop, because hook or crook) being the goal, the goal post is not visible (locatable, it can be in any direction, any where);
3) So there are no guarded / directed resources (teams)
Then where is the need for strategy? Fortunes are down-falling, Without strategy. So, no need of educating the strategy!

It is not clear whether the complaint of some, that production courses are overdone, arises from those production courses' low quality or from MBA students' lack of related aptitudes.

In my 1st-year, Harvard Business School section of about 90 students, only about a third of them seemed to have the physical sequence and mechanical aptitudes to understand and do well in the Production course. Most, but not all, of those had engineering degrees. The rest had a real aversion to production, which seems to sum up the attitude of students referred to in the article.

Down the river from Harvard Business School is Sloan School many of whose graduates are MIT engineers. They are eager to start new technology-based companies, not do finance. They understand Finance, but usually leave its details to specialists, whose work they will review.

Perceptions of courses' value change over time.

Just after WWII, when Harvard Business School graduated the highest concentration of eventual, major CEO's, production was its focus. That followed the war's destruction of much of the world's productive capacity outside the US. Even though effective buying power was down in many countries, the US could pretty much sell whatever it made. The Marshall Plan and other government programs helped effective foreign demand.

Through favorable laws, Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan, and Germany have to varying degree made manufacturing for export a key to their economies.

In the 50's, when the US began having problems selling all of its production, Marketing and Advertising courses and careers became the rage.

The next way US corporations pursued in increasing profits was through financial maneuvers and better accounting. Starting in the early mid-'60's, Finance became the most favored field. Finance is a fast field, whose mystique is far greater than its required knowledge. In finance, a few calculations can set vast resources in motion.

Finding a path thru market, regulatory, and risk obstacles, takes some imagination, smatterings of Accounting, of law for investment vehicles, of taxes, and of back-of-envelope Economics. It is a wheeling and dealing field. Accordingly, for nearly 50 years Finance has dominated the US, possibly also the UK as career of choice among those seeking business careers. In Russia this pattern seems to have taken root with a vengeance.

With nearly 50 years of the Finance trend, an explosion of MBA programs, the ease in becoming a finance-type, the excess of financier MBA's and the dearth of marketing and production type MBA's should soon make themselves felt.

Yet what are business schools to do? Business schools whose lists of Finance courses are a mile long are just going with the flow. When financial fields become saturated, what will business schools mainly oriented to finance do then?

I can't fault the conclusion of this survey. Current MBAs should devote more time to core disciplines. The excessive emphasis on softer subjects makes B-Schools turn out opininated, un realistic and superficial professionals who are not particularly mroe ethical or better leaders, and who cannot handle the basic tools of management.

About the disciplines, I'd say that Finance, Marketing and Operations are core subjects (BTW, I'd bundle Accounting with Finance, and Manufacturing with Operations), but not strategy. Strategy is an infrequent exercise in modern corporations and tends to be very industry specific. A couple of strategy courses is appropriate, but no one will leave the School directly to the Board - they'll have time to learn more on the way.

What is sorely missing is a better understanding of tactical processes, that is, how to flesh out the strategy into powerful execution. This requires knowledge of ERPs, S&OP, Activity-Based Costing, and other tools usually not covered in B-Schools.

The survey was of "applicants, current students and recent graduates".

Are their opinions important (beyond marketing the programmes)?

Many years ago research suggested that as mangers progressed through their careers their views on the relative importance of subjects shifted from the day to day subjects (I'd include basic finance there) to people subjects to ethics and more philosophical issues. That may have been at least partly due to the changing nature of their roles as they moved up.

What does "sustainable" mean? The world is in constant transition and will eventually come to an end. We cannot sustain it forever...all we can do is slow down the "death". Why should we worry if the end is in 2,000 years' time or 2,000,000(0000000...00)? I don't (and that is not selfish).